The story of course has to make one wonder why Nick Deshais and the Spokesman Review has waited so long to write this story. Is it Nick Deshais friendship with Brian Coddington from working together in the past? Were stories spiked by SR Editors and Managers? Keep in mind Addy Hatch was provided all of the information regarding Straub’s history in 2013 including all the information from Indianapolis about the way Straub acted toward his employees. Hatch told the individual supplying the information that the story was assigned to Jonathan Brunt and he would write it when he returned from maternity leave. The story of course was never published and the question is why?

Another question now becomes what did Nick Deshais know and when did he know it, so I think it is important for my readers to know what he had and when he had it. Deshais did have a source for a lot of the detail regarding Cotton/Straub, as did I have several sources. I was aware of the Carly Cortright situation soon after she was transferred and did provide the information to the SR who ignored it, I also pointed out how important of a witness she is regarding the Forfeiture and Contributions Fund, and other money Straub was spending. The Inlander was the first to tell part of her story, and I’m sure she will be telling the “Independent Investigator” quite a bit.

Below are links to the information Deshais received in his PRR, which he received prior to September 29, 2015 the day I received the same information from my PRR. On September 29th, 2015 I also received copies of very telling text messages between Angie Napolitano and Monique Cotton because my PRR included a text message request. I offered the text messages to the SR but of course because those text messages would have shade light upon what was going on prior to the election they never took up my offer.

As far as Deshais’s recent story the only thing he didn’t have were the “notes” which of course only the SR has seen.

I’m sorry I know there are a lot of documents to read which Deshais had prior to the election, if you read them all though you will understand the situation. I received these documents directly from the City of Spokane if any one objects to information which has not been redacted that should have been please contact Terri Pfister the City Clerk.

Share this:

Like this:

Just to update folks on my PRR War with the City I thought I would let you know I have received two more Nissen Affidavits, one from City Attorney Nancy Isserlis, and one from Interim Chief Rick Dobrow. They are both linked below. The City Attorney’s Affidavit I find interesting for a number of reasons, but it is something other reporters should take careful note of.

As you know not everyone involved have provided Nissen Affidavits including these folks;

An important date to keep in mind is the date of my original PRR September 5th, 2015. The date will become important later, but for now just recall that my September 5th PRR, unlike Nick Deshais PRR included all of the necessary request elements, and I did receive on September 29th,2015 text messages between Straub’s secretary Angie Napolitano and Monique Cotton which laid out what was going on long before the election. I did report on those text messages long before the election and offered what I received via my PRR to the SR who never took advantage of the offer. Like any good investigative reporter, I reported what I had to my readers prior to the Mayoral Election, the SR of course did not.

For those of you who may have forgotten I received this anonymous letter in the mail, which I also offered to all of the local media but have only been taken up on the offer from out of town media.

Below I have copied some important RCW cites for readers to consider regarding the ongoing “Independent Investigation” being conducted by a consultant for the Spokane City Council. The RCW cites are some of the things any investigator worth their salt would take into consideration when conducting the type of investigation, she is responsible for. It is import for me to reiterate that the City Council by virtue of the City Charter has subpoena power and the power to take sworn statements, if as Citizens we find that those two powers were not used during the investigation we all will know just how legitimate the investigation was. The Condon Administration is now requiring our elected City Council Members to obtain the information regarding what the Administration is actually doing via a PRR rather than being open and transparent with our elected representatives (Intermodal Precinct Issue is but one example), I of course have offered what I have which is very telling and the Nissen Affidavits are of course critical to their investigation as is all of my documented interaction with Ms. Pfister, Ms. Farnsworth, and Mr. Dalton.

I would like to welcome David Wasson as a new follower, it will be helpful for him in his new position since my columns are untainted by political ideology it may give him a clue as to how the media should handle issues.

____________________________________________________

RCW 40.14.060

Destruction, disposition of official public records or office files and memoranda—Record retention schedules.

(1) Any destruction of official public records shall be pursuant to a schedule approved under RCW 40.14.050. Official public records shall not be destroyed unless:

(a) Except as provided under RCW 40.14.070(2)(b), the records are six or more years old;

(b) The department of origin of the records has made a satisfactory showing to the state records committee that the retention of the records for a minimum of six years is both unnecessary and uneconomical, particularly if lesser federal retention periods for records generated by the state under federal programs have been established; or

(c) The originals of official public records less than six years old have been copied or reproduced by any photographic or other process approved by the state archivist which accurately reproduces or forms a durable medium for so reproducing the original.

(2) Any lesser term of retention than six years must have the additional approval of the director of financial management, the state auditor and the attorney general, except when records have federal retention guidelines the state records committee may adjust the retention period accordingly. An automatic reduction of retention periods from seven to six years for official public records on record retention schedules existing on June 10, 1982, shall not be made, but the same shall be reviewed individually by the state records committee for approval or disapproval of the change to a retention period of six years.

Recommendations for the destruction or disposition of office files and memoranda shall be submitted to the records committee upon approved forms prepared by the records officer of the agency concerned and the archivist. The committee shall determine the period of time that any office file or memorandum shall be preserved and may authorize the division of archives and records management to arrange for its destruction or disposition.

Each department or other agency of the state government shall designate a records officer to supervise its records program and to represent the office in all contacts with the records committee, hereinafter created, and the division of archives and records management. The records officer shall:

(1) Coordinate all aspects of the records management program.

(2) Inventory, or manage the inventory, of all public records at least once during a biennium for disposition scheduling and transfer action, in accordance with procedures prescribed by the state archivist and state records committee: PROVIDED, That essential records shall be inventoried and processed in accordance with chapter 40.10 RCW at least annually.

(3) Consult with any other personnel responsible for maintenance of specific records within his or her state organization regarding records retention and transfer recommendations.

(4) Analyze records inventory data, examine and compare divisional or unit inventories for duplication of records, and recommend to the state archivist and state records committee minimal retentions for all copies commensurate with legal, financial, and administrative needs.

(5) Approve all records inventory and destruction requests which are submitted to the state records committee.

(6) Review established records retention schedules at least annually to insure that they are complete and current.

(7) Exercise internal control over the acquisition of filming and file equipment.

If a particular agency or department does not wish to transfer records at a time previously scheduled therefor, the records officer shall, within thirty days, notify the archivist and request a change in such previously set schedule, including his or her reasons therefor.

Every public officer who, being authorized by law to make or give a certificate or other writing, shall knowingly make and deliver as true such a certificate or writing containing any statement which he or she knows to be false, in a case where the punishment thereof is not expressly prescribed by law, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor.

RCW 42.20.040

False report.

Every public officer who shall knowingly make any false or misleading statement in any official report or statement, under circumstances not otherwise prohibited by law, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor.

RCW 42.20.080

Other violations by officers.

Every officer or other person mentioned in RCW 42.20.070, who shall willfully disobey any provision of law regulating his or her official conduct in cases other than those specified in said section, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor.

RCW 42.20.100

Failure of duty by public officer a misdemeanor.

Whenever any duty is enjoined by law upon any public officer or other person holding any public trust or employment, their willful neglect to perform such duty, except where otherwise specially provided for, shall be a misdemeanor.

RCW 9A.76.175

Making a false or misleading statement to a public servant.

A person who knowingly makes a false or misleading material statement to a public servant is guilty of a gross misdemeanor. “Material statement” means a written or oral statement reasonably likely to be relied upon by a public servant in the discharge of his or her official powers or duties.

Share this:

Like this:

Well…apparently Tim Schwering, Mayor Condon and Frank Straub’s exempt hire who has been in charge of the Internal Affairs Unit during all of the SPD fiascos, was sworn in as a Spokane Police Department Officer today, even though there may be some problems with respect to the SPD entry exam. Information from sources and documents I have obtained indicate there could be some problems. I have emailed both Schwering and Dobrow requesting comment on my information however they have not responded in any way so it could get interesting. I might add that his move is part of the political games going on at SPD.

Share this:

Like this:

That is unless you want to go to the SPD website, fight your way through a disorganized and cumbersome list of IA cases that are structured to keep the public and the media from finding what they want, and actually locate the case pertaining to this story.

One of the many things that might be of interest to you is who the Guild representatives were that were present during Conrath’s formal IA Statement (Gosh I wish these cops would learn the proper way to take statements).

I continually see SPD violating the Public Records Act when they release documents to the Public. In this case they publicly released the name of the husband as well as his identifiers which is in violation of the Public Records Act. As a point of interest the Spokesman Review on a number of occasions has linked un-redacted documents they received from SPD on their website. Each time I caught it I would call or email them and tell them to redact them or take them down. I had one funny email exchange between Alison Boggs regarding one of the linked SPD documents that I have copies of and my final response to her was “Okay your call but I would talk to Swinton.” It was eventually taken down.

I did consider for a while whether or not to provide a copy of the IA Report because it does list the husbands name and identifiers, but came to the conclusion that I didn’t make it public SPD did so The husband can take it up with SPD.

When you read these IA cases it is always interesting to note who was on the Review Board that made the discipline recommendations. Some media outlets keep track of that type of information so they have a history of the review boards and the decisions made by those individuals.

NOW HERE IS A TIP FOR MY READERS!

When you read the IA Report scroll down to the original “Incident Report” and notice that there is a small box marked “Confidentiality” just to the left of each address section. That little box is required by the Public Records Act, and if you are making a police report or are named in a police report as a victim or witness make sure that you tell the cop you want your name and all your identifiers to remain confidential and NOT released to the public. If you don’t take it upon yourself to do it and are adamant about it the cops won’t do it. The same is true if you are caught in a situation where you are on body camera video, make sure you tell the cops on tape that you DO NOT want the video released to the public. This fact is something you will never hear from SPD or the other media.